0
What else can I help you with?
Why is Darwin's theory of evolution better than Lamrack's?
Darwin's explanation for the fact of evolution was better than Lamarck's explanation and fit the fact of evolution. Natural selection solved much of the species problem, but acquired characteristics did not have the empirical support and explained nothing in the end.
What question did both Lamarck and Darwin try to answer with their theories of evolution?
What is the mechanism that causes evolution. Both knew evolution occurred and occurs but did not know how or why. Lamark's " desire to evolve " and " acquired characteristics " failed to explain evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was the better explanation.
Why did Darwin think giraffes are a good example of natural selections?
Actually, it was Lamarck who earlier introduced the giraffe as an example for evolution - Lamarckian evolution, to be sure. Lamarck proposed that there was some mechanism by which the short-necked ancestors of giraffes could acquire a change such that their offspring would have necks better suited to their needs. Darwin applied natural selection to the same example mainly because it had already been discussed in such detail.
How would Lamarck and Darwin have explained the a duck's webbed feet?
As a results of duck of geneticVariation in duck population. *some had webbed feet than others *as results of not having webbed feet to compete for their food *duck with unWebbed feet Died *duck with Webbed feet Survive this called Natural Selection *The characteristics of Webbed feet acquired and pass on to the subsequently generations *All duck had webbed feet
What was lamarcks hypothesis about how species change?
Lamarck's hypothesis about evolution was that animals would change based on their environment during their lifetime and pass on those traits to their offspring. This is different from Darwin's theory in that all animals mutate in someway and it's the surviving mutations that pass on that slowly change the animal over many generations.
Why is Darwin's theory of evolution better than Lamrack's?
Darwin's explanation for the fact of evolution was better than Lamarck's explanation and fit the fact of evolution. Natural selection solved much of the species problem, but acquired characteristics did not have the empirical support and explained nothing in the end.
How was Darwin's theory of evolution different from lamarcks?
In Darwin's theory, natural selection plays the key role. Organisms vary through random mutations--slight changes from their parents. The environment determines which are most likely to survive. In Lamarck's theory, changes in phenotype are inherited. This is now known to be (largely) incorrect.
What question did both Lamarck and Darwin try to answer with their theories of evolution?
What is the mechanism that causes evolution. Both knew evolution occurred and occurs but did not know how or why. Lamark's " desire to evolve " and " acquired characteristics " failed to explain evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was the better explanation.
Why did Darwin think giraffes are a good example of natural selections?
Actually, it was Lamarck who earlier introduced the giraffe as an example for evolution - Lamarckian evolution, to be sure. Lamarck proposed that there was some mechanism by which the short-necked ancestors of giraffes could acquire a change such that their offspring would have necks better suited to their needs. Darwin applied natural selection to the same example mainly because it had already been discussed in such detail.
Darwin and Lamarck had different ideas about why all giraffes now have long necks why?
Lamarck would have said that the ancestors of modern-day giraffes had short necks but stretched their necks as they tried to reach leaves in trees; so, their descendants were born with longer necks. Darwin would have said that in a population of ancestral giraffes, some had slightly longer necks than others; the long-necked giraffes were better able to feed on tree leaves and as a result produced more offspring. Over time, the proportion of longnecked giraffes in the population increased.
How is lamarkism better than Darwinism?
Lamarkism is not considered better than Darwinism as it has been largely discredited in the scientific community. Darwinism, or modern evolutionary theory, is supported by evidence from genetics, comparative anatomy, and the fossil record. It provides a more comprehensive and accurate explanation for the mechanism of evolution through natural selection.
How would Lamarck and Darwin have explained the a duck's webbed feet?
As a results of duck of geneticVariation in duck population. *some had webbed feet than others *as results of not having webbed feet to compete for their food *duck with unWebbed feet Died *duck with Webbed feet Survive this called Natural Selection *The characteristics of Webbed feet acquired and pass on to the subsequently generations *All duck had webbed feet
Who understands evolution better then Darwin?
Darwin didn't fully understand evolution he came up with the theory.
What is known as the fittest is Darwin's explanation for diversity in nature?
'Evolution of the fittest by natural evolution' is attributed to Darwin and Wallace. An alternate phrasing might be 'Failure of the least-fit by ... ', which equally (or better) explains the results.
How would Lamarck have explained the large eyes of an owl?
Darwin would have said that a few owls were born with bigger eyes. The owls with the big eyes would survive better and have more offspring so the owls with small eyes were less common untill there were only big eyed owls. This is called natural selection.
Why is visualizing helpful when drawing a conclusion?
if you can see the information, you are better able to draw a conclusion from it
How is Darwin's theory of Evolution and Lamarck's theory of Evolution alike?
The primary difference between Darwin's and Lamarck's approaches to evolution (if I remember correctly) was that Darwin believed that evolution operated primarily through breeding and death: members of a species that have unproductive characteristics tend to die early and have less opportunity to produce offspring, and so their characteristics are not passed on to future generations. Lamarck, by contrast, thought that environmental conditions could exert a direct (if slight) influence on the genome, so that parents would tend to produce offspring that were better suited to the environment they lived in. For example, Darwin would explain the thick fur and subcutaneous fat deposits of cold-climate animals by saying that members of the species with less fur and fat would die more easily and earlier in cold weather; Lamarck would explain the same result by saying that the cold climate induced the organisms to produce more fur and fat, and their offspring would be born with a greater capacity to produce those things than their parents. Lamarck's theory has not been disproved - scientists still do not have a clear understanding of the process of evolution - but for various non-scientific reasons it is less accepted in the scientific community (primarily, I think, because it opens the door to a teleological argument abut the nature of species that most scientists find distasteful). It is important to point out that Darwin's theory was that of Natural Selection and The Origin of Species, and he was not proposing any system separate from or one that discredited classical Creationist theory. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, however, coined the phrase Evolution.
